Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

demand, provided that when an appeal is taken by the United States no payment of fees shall be required. In all other cases fees shall be paid in advance.

It is further ordered that the fees and costs to be allowed to the marshal shall be, and hereby are, fixed the same as those allowed to the marshal of the Supreme Court of the United States.

them by the court. Said reporter shall prepare and transmit to the Secretary of the Treasury once a week in time for publication in the Treasury Decisions copies of all decis.ons. rendered to that date by said court, and prepare and transmit, under the direction of said court, at least once a year, reports of said decisions rendered to that date, constituting a volume, which shall be printed by the Treasury Department in such numbers and distributed or sold in such manner as the Secretary of the Treasury shall direct. The marshal of said court for the District of Columbia is hereby authorized to purchase, under the direction of the presiding judge, such books, periodicals, and stationery as may be necessary for the use of said court, and such expenditures shall be allowed and paid by the Secretary of the Treasury upon claim duly made and approved by said presiding judge.

INDEX.

ABANDONMENT OF JURISDICTION.

See COURTS, 1.

ACCOMPLICE.
See EVIDENCE, 2.

ACCOUNTING..
See CONTRACTS, 5;

PUBLIC OFFICERS, 4, 5.

ACTIONS.
Maintenance by foreign executor in District of Columbia.
Under the provisions of $ 329, Code of the District of Columbia, an

executor who can maintain an action for specific performance in
the jurisdiction in which the land lies can maintain it in the Dis-

trict if the defendant there resides. Stewart v. Griffith, 323.
See CONDEMNATION OF LAND; JUDGMENTS AND DECREES, 2, 3;

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 33; JURISDICTION;
COURTS, 2;

PENALTIES AND FORFEITURES,
EXECUTORS AND ADMINIS- 4;
TRATORS, 1;

REMOVAL OF Causes, 2.

ACTS OF CONGRESS.
BANKRUPTCY, Act of July 1, 1898, § 4, subs. b (see Bankruptcy): Noll-

man & Cd. v. Wentworth Lunch Co., 591. Sec. 25a (see Appeal and

Error, 5): Brady v. Bernard & Kittinger, 595.
CRIMINAL LAW, Act of February 25, 1903, 32 Stat. 904, as amended

by act of June 30, 1906, 34 Stat. 798 (see Criminal Law, 1): Heike
v. United States, 423. Rev. Stat., $ 5339 (see Evidence, 3): Wynne
v. United States, 234. Bev. Stat., § 5395 (see Criminal Law, 4, 5):

Holmgren v. United States, 509.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Act of June 6, 1900, 31 Stat. 668 (see Con-

demnation of Land, 1): Columbia Heights Realty Co. v. Rudolph,
547.

[ocr errors]

EVIDENCE, Rev. Stat., § 882 (see Evidence, 3): Il'ynne v. United States,

234.
HAWAII, Act of April 30, 1890, 85, 31 Stat. 141 (see Jurisdiction,

D 2): 16.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, Act of February 4, 1889, 24 Stat. 379 (see

Statutes, A 5): Davis v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 157.

Rev. Stat., 85258 (see Statutes, A 5): 1b.
JUDICIARY, Act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 470 (see Jurisdiction, C

1): Schultz v. Diehl, 594. Act of March 3, 1891 (see Appeal and
Error, 2): Columbia Heights Realty Co. v. Rudolph, 547; (see
Certiorari, 1, 3): McClellan v. Carland, 268; Lutcher & Moore
Lumber Co. v. Knight, 257; (see Jurisdiction, F 2): Lutcher &
Moore Lumber Co. v. Knight, 257; (see Writ and Process) McClellan
v. Carland, 268. Section 5 (see Jurisdiction, C 6, 7): Daris v.
Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 157. Section 6 (see Juris-
diction, À 8): Hutchinson, Pierce & Co. v. Loeuy, 457. Act of
February 9, 1893, § 8, 27 Stat. 436 (see Appeal and Error, 1):
Columbia Heights Realty Co. v. Rudolph, 547. Rev. Stat., § 703
(see Appeal and Error, 1, 2): Ib. Section 709 (see Jurisdiction,
A 3, 4, 5): St. Louis S. W. Ry. v. Arkansas, 136; Los Angeles Mill-
ing Co. v. Los Angeles, 217; Rogers v. Clark Iron Co., 589. Sec-
tion 716 (see Certiorari, 1; Writ and Process): McClellan v. Car-
land, 268. Sections 997, 1012 (see Appeal and Error, 1, 2; Practice
and Procedure, 3): Columbia Heights Realty Co. v. Rudolph, 547.
Section 5339 (see Jurisdiction. D1, 2): Wynne v. United States,

234.
Mails, Acts of May 15, 1856, 11 Stat. 9; March 3, 1857, 11 Stat. 195,

and July 12, 1876, $ 13, 19 Stat. 78 (see Mails, 1): Chicago, St. P.,

Minn. & 0. Ry. Co. v. United States, 180.
MEXICAN. TITLES, Act of March 3, 1851, 9 Stat. 631 (see Riparian
Rights. 1, 2): Los Angeles Milling Co. v. Los Angeles, 217.

,
NATURALÍZATION, Act of July 13, 1870, 16 Stat. 254, and 88 5395, 5429,

Rev. Stat. (sec Criminal Law, 5): Holmgren v. United States, 509.
NAVIGATION, Rev. Stat., § 4155 (see Evidence, 3): Wynne v. United

States, 234.
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Act of July 1, 1902, 32 Stat. 691 (see Penalties

and Forfeitures, 1, 2): Freeman v. United States, 539; (see Philip-

pine Islands, 2); Weems v. United States, 349.
Public BUILDINGS Act of March 2, 1901, 31 Stat. 922 (see Contracts,

6, 7): Lord & Hewlett v. United States, 340. Act of February 9,

1903, 32 Stat. 806 (see Contracts, 7): 16.
REVISION OF THE LAWS, Act of June 27, 1866, 14 Stat. 75 (see Criminal

Law, 5): Holmgren v. United States, 509.
TRADE-MARKS, Act of February 20, 1905, $8 17, 18, 33 Stat. 724 (see
Jurisdiction, A 8; C 3): Hutchinson, Pierce & Co. v. Loewy,
457.

AGENCY.
See CONTRACTS, 12; PUBLIC OFFICERS, 1;

CORPORATIONS, 1, 2; TAXES AND TAXATION, 2.

ALIENS.
See CONSTITUTIONAL Law, 35.

ALLEGATIONS AND PROOF.

See EVIDENCE, 1.

AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION.
Eighth. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 10, 11, 12, 13;

PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, 1.
Fourteenth. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY.
See JURISDICTION, A 1, 2.

.

APPEAL AND ERROR.
1. From Court of Appeals of District of Columbia; law applicable.
Under the act of February 9, 1893, c. 74, 88, 27 Stat. 436, appeals
provisions, with leave to plead over, does not, in a criminal case,
terminate the whole matter in litigation, and is not a final judg-
ment to which a writ of error will lie from this court. Heike v.
United States, 423.

from and writs of error to the Court of Appeals of the District of
Columbia are governed by $ 705, Rev. Stat., as to procedure,
and by 88 997 and 1012, Rev. Stat., as to filing the transcript and
assignment of error as from a Circuit Court. Columbia Heights
Realty Co. v. Rudolph, 547.

2. Same; application of Rules 35 and 21; assignment of errors.
Rule 35 refers in terms only to writs of error and appeals under $ 5

of the Court of Appeals Act of March 3, 1891, but by Rule 21,
it is in effect extended to every writ of error and appeal; and,
although errors may not be assigned on a writ of error to the
Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, the court is not
under obligation to dismiss the writ in case the assignment of
errors are not filed as required by $8 997 and 1012, Rev. Stat.,
having by its rules reserved the option to notice plain error
whether assigned or not. Ib.

3. Finality of judgment in criminal case for purpose of review.
A judgment overruling a special plea of immunity under statutory

4. Finality of decree for purpose of review by this court.
A decree is final for the purposes of review by this court when it termi-

nates the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing to be done
except to enforoe by execution what has been determined. (St.
Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern R. R. Co. v. Express Co., 108
U. S. 24.) Ib.

5. From adjudication in bankruptcy.
An appeal from an adjudication in bankruptcy taken under 8 25a of

the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 dismissed because taken too late.
Brady v. Bernard & Kittinger, 595.

6. What appealable.
A case cannot be brought to this court by piecemeal; it can only be

reviewed here after final judgment. Heike v. United States, 423.

7. When writ of error based on constitutional question will not lie.
A writ of error based on constitutional question will not lie unless the

controversy is a substantial one and the question open to discus-
sion. Fay v. Crozer, 455.

8. Writ of error dismissed where constitutional question foreclosed by

prior decision.
If the identical question has been determined in a suit involving a

state statute it is foreclosed although it may subsequently arise in
connection with the provision of the constitution of the State
under which the statute was enacted, and the writ of error will be
dismissed. Ib.

9. Same.
The questions involved in this case having been determined in King

v. Mullin, 171 U. S. 404; King v. West Virginia, 216 U. S. 92; the
writ of error is dismissed. 16.

See PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 15;

JURISDICTION.

APPEARANCE.
See JURISDICTION, H.

« PreviousContinue »